November 30, 2007

Giuliani appears to have cheated the taxpayers, although I'm not sure that's true; perhaps there is nothing illegal or improper about using taxpayer money to pay for security when you commit adultery. God knows we paid the Secret Service when Bill Clinton was doing it, many times. And let's not even mention the Arkansas State Police. Oops, I mentioned them.

I'll opine more when I get the chance. Right now, I'm only trying to give you something to talk about while I'm off doing things....

96 comments:

What predictable form from the Repubs! Blame Clinton and shield the Republican from accountability.

Don't they ever tire of that schtick?

It was funny listening to Rudy on NPR playing the victim. Poor Rudy is getting beat up. It's so unfair to mention his use of security for his wife AND his mistress during his taxpayer funded shag-o-rama.

If all we are talking about are the expenses incurred in providing the mayor with security (which expenses, more or less, would have been incurred whether or not he was committing adultery) this is a non-issue. The mayor of NYC is provided with 24 hour security. The mayor's immediate family is also provided with security. That's one of the "benefits" of the job.

If, on the other hand, the mayor was using city resources to provide security (or other services) to his girl friend, this is an issue. Security and related services are not, as a rule, extended to the mayor's "friends". Maybe they should be under certain circumstances, but I wouldn't grant the mayor the unilateral authority to make that call. Unless he'd been granted authority to spend taxpayer money on his girl friend's security, to would be wrong for him to do so.

So far, it appears we're talking about his security and not hers, so I think this is a non-issue.

David, there are several issues here. Such as why the City of New York provided security for Rudy's mistress while he was cheating on his wife. (Let alone why there was security detail his wife). Can you explain why Rudy's mistress had her own security detail?

Then there's the Enron style accounting used to conceal this. That doesn't make you a teensy bit curious?

Also emerging now is a picture of a Mayor living the high life at taxpayers' expense.

Sure, Republicans will try to say "no story here, folks, keep moving." Brush it under the rug like all the other seamy sex scandals from the hypocritical GOP - Grand Old Perverts*.

* - OK, maybe philandering is not perversion in a strict sense. Or is it?

Zeb, here's your source on how Rudy Giuliani had taxpayers provide a security detail for his mistress while he was cheating on his wife:

From ABC News: "Well before it was publicly known he was seeing her, then-married New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani provided a police driver and city car for his mistress Judith Nathan, former senior city officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

"She used the PD as her personal taxi service," said one former city official who worked for Giuliani.

New York papers reported in 2000 that the city had provided a security detail for Nathan, who became Giuliani's third wife after his divorce from Donna Hanover, who also had her own police security detail at the same time."

What a lot of partisan nonsense, whether aimed at Rudy, Bill or any other pol. High profile politicians (presidents, govs, SCOTUS judges, etc.) have security details 24/7 whether they like it or not (most don't - would you?). It makes no difference what they are doing (reading, dining out, attending a political event, taking a roll in the hay, whatever); the security detail follows them. They don't talk publicly about the pol they are protecting, what he's doing, who he's with or where he's going -- and if it were otherwise they could never do their job.

A security detail is useful in getting you through a midtown traffic jam. Other than that, there's not much to like in being followed every minute of the day, and having almost no private life whatever.

All of that is true regardless of the political party of the pol at issue. Because it is always true, this kind of story ("a pol used his security detail to do (or hide) X") is always a political hit job, having no substance whatever. Only a partisan hack or a complete idiot pretends otherwise.

You guys duck these hard questions pretty routinely. ---------------------Oh, look. Turns out Rudy Giuliani is also a shameless liar: "Discussing his crime-fighting success as mayor, Mr. Giuliani told a television interviewer that New York was "the only city in America that has reduced crime every single year since 1994." In New Hampshire this week, he told a public forum that when he became mayor in 1994, New York "had been averaging like 1,800, 1,900 murders for almost 30 years." When a recent Republican debate turned to the question of fiscal responsibility, he boasted that “under me, spending went down by 7 percent.”

All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong..."

Any bets on whether this story is ignored by the pundits? I say "yes."

Answer this. Since when have any of you suddenly judgmental Progressives given a damn about anybody's mistress?

The predictable desperation to undermine Giuliani at any opportunity is one consistency I observe among the "Progressive" movement. Why would that be? Surely, it can't be that they are concerned he could beat Hillary. That can't be it.

DBrooks: "Answer this. Since when have any of you suddenly judgmental Progressives given a damn about anybody's mistress?"

Since the news that Rudy had taxpayers funding his philandering hit, earlier this week. Also, since Republicans posed as the "family values" party while various Repubs were revealed as philanders after posing for Holy Pictures.

"Why security for Rudy's mistress?" For the same reason that the Gov't provides security for others having some specific relationship (typically familial) with a high profile pol that might make them a target of the wackos wanting to hurt/kill the pol. The level and extent of whatever security is needed depends on (1) the pol, (2) the level of the threats, (3) the nature of the relationship, (4) the publicity surrounding the relationship, among many other factors.

As for the "accounting," that's even more of a partisan hack/complete idiot meme. Who cares? Rudy was a high profile target; he had lots of enemies who hated his guts, many who had the means and desire to hurt him however they could. People close to him -- wife, kids, wife-substitute -- were obvious surrogate targets.

And people wonder why American politics so even seems stuck on stupid ....

To the claim that providing security for mistresses is routine practice, not even the Giuliani camp is pushing that one anymore:

'Joe Lhota, a deputy mayor in Giuliani's City Hall, told the Daily News Wednesday night that the administration's practice of allocating security expenses to small city offices that had nothing to do with mayoral protection has "gone on for years" and "predates Giuliani."

When told budget officials from the administrations of Ed Koch and David Dinkins said they did no such thing, Lhota caved Thursday, "I'm going to reverse myself on that. I'm just going to talk about the Giuliani era," Lhota said. "I should only talk about what I know about."...

They shouldn't, if it is substantiated as fact that they did those things for her while she was his mistress.

And likewise in the exact same vein I'm sure you will agree that the Arkansas State Police should not have been used to procure women for the Arkansas governor, at least while not on duty. Right? Right? Right? In other words you're just now getting to where we were in 1992. A little late to the party, but welcome aboard little cowboy!

AlphaLiberal, in my original post I said it would be an issue if the mayor had the city provide security for his mistress. At the time I wrote that I had not seen the claims by ABC News that this is exactly what the mayor did. Absent proper authority of this use of taxpayer funds, this was wrong and the mayor should be held accountable by voters. (I assume the statute of limitations would prevent the city from seeking reimbursement. If not, the city should sue, if necessary, to recoup the expenses.)

Having said that, I don't think it's impossible to justify these expenses as being properly borne by the city. They mayor of NYC is, unfortunately, a target. So, too, are those close to him (or her). Most employers (both public and private) pick up the tab for the expenses that are directly related to employment. If the need for security is caused by someone's employment, as a general rule (with lots of exceptions) the security should be paid for by the employer.

I would think the security needs of a girl friend would be one of the exceptions to the general rule. Yes, her security needs were in some way "caused" by the mayor's position. But the mayor could have avoided that expense by avoiding the relationship. It's not reasonable to ask an employee to give up his family for sake of employment, so the employer should pay for the family's security needs caused by the employment. I think most people would think girl friends are in a different category altogether.

To my mind this is similar to the situation of Col. Oliver North. IIRC, he and his family were subject to credible death threats. The government should have covered his reasonable security costs, but choose not to. Col. North found "other funds" with which to pay for the security system at his home. It was wrong for him to do so. Understandable, but wrong.

Nobody is stuck on stupid here. For the 8 years of Clinton's presidency and the 8 years now following it, we are stuck on his personal life - I'm not but the GOP watercarriers are and we hear it day by day, drip by drip.

Rudy, by all accounts, has the morals of a Bill Clinton when it comes to chasing women when married. He did use security for her and he did have the NYPD drive her around. That isn't conjecture. The vouchers are all over the internet unless you care to disregard them. He claims it is "personal" and "a hit job" and "he did nothing improper"...I guess regarding burying the reports in other departments budgets...but he cheated on his wife, blatantly and like a two-bit jackass.

That may qualify him to be something but perhaps the moral threshold for being the leader of the free world should be just a bit higher than you like here.

You could conceivably make the argument that his mistress required security detail because of threats to his life, but the problem is that Rudy is going to do everything possible to NOT make that precise argument. While the legality of it maybe open to question, the ethics of it are all bad. So we are going to get lying, and posturing and scathing attacks aimed at making sure that he doesn't have to defend his personal behavior.

hdhouse:For the 8 years of Clinton's presidency and the 8 years now following it, we are stuck on his personal life - I'm not but the GOP watercarriers are and we hear it day by day, drip by drip.

"Personal life" is not accurate. I didn't care when Clinton had an affair with Gennifer Flowers. Thats between Bill and his family.

Rudy, by all accounts, has the morals of a Bill Clinton when it comes to chasing women when married.

Again, I'm not thrilled about Rudy's affairs or what that says about his character but you really whitewash Clinton's scandals. Its not about "chasing women when married" its about sexually abusing subordinate employees during his career as Governor and President. Working women shouldn't be denied'given interviews because they do/do not swallow [Jones/Lewinsky]

However, as a practical matter, Clinton's method of dealing with his misbehavior should be the model for Rudy and others caught in similar circumstances. I don't expect to hear any Democrats object if:

Rudy denies anything happened for months.

Rudy questions the motives of his accusers, and describes them as ideologues (perhaps while wearing a pink dress).

Rudy finally admits it in a televised apology, after which a relative of Barney Frank tells the country it's time to change the subject.

Rudy's supporters form a group called ItsTimeToChangeTheSubject.com, which spends most of its time finding example of hypocrisy in Rudy's foes.

No, just experienced in Democrat scandal mongering. I'm waiting for confirmation from honest sources before I weigh in.

IF Rudy did these things, its rather dishonest of you to claim the GOP will sweep it under the rug. Thats a difference between us - we throw our perps under the bus, you guys claim "its just about sex, move on".

Trevor: How long did Republican congressional leadership know about his page problem?

"We" are not congressional leadership. I'm talking about GOP voters. Foley, Lott, et al all tried to save their sorry butts - it was outcry from the GOP base that forced them out. In contrast, the Dem base insisted sexually abusing female staffers was "just about sex"...

When in doubt, blame the liberal media. Pre. Dict. A. Ble.

Experience. Do I really need to list all the MSM "scandals" that had no beef?

Predictable: A month of outrage from the Left, "scandal" drops off the radar, WaPO/NYTs issue retraction at bottom of p16 in small print.

While I am a Giuliani supporter, if Rudy was billing the city for his trysts then that tells me a lot about his character, none of it good. Will certainly be looking at the evidence as it emerges and possibly reassessing.

Alpha Liberal said: What predictable form from the Repubs! Blame Clinton and shield the Republican from accountability.

Yeah, that's funny, isn't it?

Republicans used to express outrage about the things Clinton did, but ever since have used them as excuses for their own behavior.

What is reveals is they don't even belief their own self-professed values. All that crap about values is a weapon to use in political brawls; the well-established fact is that they couldn't care less about morals.

Since no one is going to call Doyle on this, I will:Doyle you ignorant slut. How many times does it have to be said - Clinton was not impeached for adultery, he was impeached for perjury.You leftists and your myths.

My initial impression is that Rudy's police bodyguards follow him everywhere. So if he travels to the Hamptons to boink a mistress, they follow him there too.

But maybe he really did arrange for illicit payments using state funds, in which case he does deserve to get busted for it. Not that it would stop me from voting for him over Hillary Clinton, but he deserves to get busted for it. :)

Republicans used to express outrage about the things Clinton did, but ever since have used them as excuses for their own behavior.

When have we ever made excuses for sexually abusing subordinate staff? Even when Foley was outed for harvesting interns for sexual relationships [after they left the intern program] I was one of the first on this blog to say: "he should be taken out back and shot".

I wish you guys on the Left had the integrity to distinguish between 1) consenual affairs outside of work that are no ones business [Gennifer Flowers] and 2) sexually abusing subordinate female staff [Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey]

While I am a Giuliani supporter, if Rudy was billing the city for his trysts then that tells me a lot about his character, none of it good. Will certainly be looking at the evidence as it emerges and possibly reassessing.

What it tells me is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which we knew.

I've been around enough politicians to know that even the best of them have those "I'm the ______!" moments. It's not Democratic or Republican and it is jaw-droppingly hypocritical for one party to claim they are any cleaner on this than the other.

This is how a liberal becomes a libertarian: When you finally figure out the only way to stop politicians from abusing their authority and your money is to give them less of both. But even if all they had to spend was $100, they'd figure out a way to cheat on at least $25 of it.

If this is Guiliani's worst scandal, he's going to be fine. If this is the worst scandal of this type in the campaign, I'll be amazed.

Monica was not "abused." That was consensual. What part of "wanna see my thong" don't you get?

Willey is not a reliable case: "The Final Report of the US Office of the Independent Counsel report noted that "Willey gave false information to the FBI about her sexual relationship with a former boyfriend, and acknowledged having lied about it when the agents confronted her with contradictory evidence. Following Willey’s acknowledgment of the lie, the Independent Counsel agreed not to prosecute her for false statements in this regard.". According to Independent Counsel Robert Ray’s report, "Willey’s [Paula] Jones deposition testimony differed from her grand jury testimony on material aspects of the alleged incident."

"Willey has a history of controversial claims including telling the FBI she was pregnant and she had a miscarriage when she did not."Link

You guys continue to lie about all this and you efforts to destroy Clinton with various false accusations.

Well said, verso: "What is reveals is they don't even belief their own self-professed values. All that crap about values is a weapon to use in political brawls; the well-established fact is that they couldn't care less about morals."

So it doesn't matter Monica was not abused, you will keep saying she was. Liar.

As far as Paula Jones, she lost credibility with me when the right wing funded her legal case and represented and spoke for her. But, the court came down pretty hard on Clinton in the case so I pretty much leave her alone.

However, your claim that she was passed by for a promotion is false. The court found she had no case and it was tossed out.

So, on one hand, Rudy is being hammered with real facts that he can't deny. You're still slinging lies at Clinton in desperation and you're still peddling lies.

The issue was not just the power imbalance of intern vs. leader of the free world. Sexual harassment has another component: Favoritism. Not just any intern could get the POTUS to demand outplacement with a Fortune 500 company in exchange for her continued cooperation.

All of which means nothing to this case. Giuliani's case will rise or fall in its merits. I just want to remind everyone what used to be the conventional wisdom about sexual harassment in the workplace pre-98.

So it doesn't matter Monica was not abused, you will keep saying she was

Exploiting an intern in a power relationship is abuse. Doesn't matter if she was willing. And as Stodder indicated, it was a betrayal of all the other women working at WH who didn't get interviews at Revlon and UN b/c they didn't attract Clinton's "favour".

I posted information on how Willey lost her credibility

Nothing you've posted refutes her allegations against Clinton. We're left with Wiley vs a man who said "I want you to listen to me.."

Alpha: As far as Paula Jones, she lost credibility with me when the right wing funded her legal case and represented and spoke for her

Thats an odd standard. Did you really expect the left wing would fund a legal case of a fellow Democrat accusing their Poster Boy of sexual discrimination? Keep reaching for a valid reason - commitment and consistency.

However, your claim that she was passed by for a promotion is false. The court found she had no case and it was tossed out.

Only because Clinton perjured himself, suborned perjury, and obstructed justice at every turn.

The "perjury," for which he was aquitted, was about .... the adultery.

He was never "acquitted". He was impeached and then not punished.

And it wasn't "lies about adultery". Under the 1994 Crime Bill, signed by Clinton and lobbied for by feminists, Paula Jones had a right of discovery re any information that established a pattern of sexual predatory behavior in the workplace. Clinton's perjury was a violation of that right.

You're currently having an affair with your secretary. Another employee charges you with sexual discrimination and harassment. That other employee has a right to interview you and your secretary to discover if 1) she's having an affair with you and 2) if she was coerced in any way ... to establish a pattern... And if you interfere with that discovery in any way, you are obstructing justice.

These are things the Left used to lecture us about, these are the things they never really believed in the first place.

Nice game leftists play. Henry Hyde was not perfect - committed adultery decades ago - so he has no right to challenge Clinton's perfidy, abortions, whatever.But since the left is devoid of moral values, they get a pass on everything.

I'd like to point out that Bush hasn't been found guilty of any crimes either. Heck, he hasn't even been impeached. By the standard of guilt the left applies to Clinton, Bush is even more law-abiding and innocent than Clinton was.

There's a notion that should give the Left fits.

Seriously, though, Bill Clinton is a perjurer; that is a simple matter of fact. That various people and groups do (the bar association) or don't (the Senate) accept that fact merely reflects how willing those groups are to accept the truth. It doesn't change the underlying fact that Clinton was a perjurer.

gahrie: Fen is right, this is all about 12 year allegations about Bill Clinton anyway.

Nah I never said that. I was merely trying to get liberals to understand a distinction they ignored in their own posts: abusing subordinate female staffers != consenual affair

Rudy's a pig for having an affair, but that doesn't come close to Clinton sexually assualting his staff.

The Senate did not find Clinton guilty of the perjury charges.

Thats disingenuous. The Senate is not a courtroom. Its a political body. The House can impeach, but impeachment only corresponds to something like an indictment. The Senate can refuse to punish, but thats not the same as a criminal being acquitted.

Besides, from what I recall, the Senate Dems were not arguing that Clinton was innocent, they were arguing that his behavior did not rise to the level of impeachment.

Joe: Nice game leftists play. Henry Hyde was not perfect - committed adultery decades ago - so he has no right to challenge Clinton's perfidy, abortions, whatever. But since the left is devoid of moral values, they get a pass on everything

Its the same Tu Quoque fallacy they always play:

D did something wrongbut R did the same thingso D is excused

And they define their principles by what they believe the opposition does.

And this explanation also seems bogus for another reason -- one which, as we'll see, should give us some further sense of how a Giuliani White House might operate. The City Comptroller started finding these irregularities in 2002 after Rudy left office. When the comptroller's office asked Rudy's people for an explanation, they refused to discuss it citing "security" reasons.

Now, I think we've all gotten used to the fact that the current crew at the White House uses various security-based excuses to refuse to answer questions about all sorts of things. But he's actually the president. And while I think they've terribly abused this dodge to create a climate of extreme secrecy and non-trasnsparency, at the end of the day there actually are legitimate security issues tied to the president -- both to the protection of his person and a decent amount of what he does on the job.

Cristyne Lategano. She was promoted from press secretary to communications director, then finally head of NYC tourism bureau. The affair was all common knowledge to anyone in NYC, and it's all out there if you want to look it up. Somehow I doubt you will.

Garage Mahal is referring to someone else, the person Donna Hanover is supposed to have accused of causing the original damage to her marriage to Giuliani. The woman--who was a staffer--has denied the accusation (as has Giuliani).

Gack. See what happens when you take a phone call mid-comment? You get beaten to the punch.

Well, it was really Garage Mahal's question to answer, anyway, and that commenter decided to use the name, which I wasn't going to since I didn't feel like citing (and don't know if the relationship was ever proved).

J.D. Sheldrake: Ya know, you see a girl a couple of times a week, just for laughs, and right away they think you're gonna divorce your wife. Now I ask you, is that fair? C.C. Baxter: No, sir, it's very unfair. Especially to your wife. (The Apartment,1960)

Rudy's story is an old story, though. I mean, he and Hanover moved in together prior to his divorce from his first wife. That was 25 years ago. (The first marriage was later annulled.) For whatever reason, none of this stuff seemed to impact Giuliani's career (and I'm not saying it should, or shouldn't). And none of it's new.

Fran Kubelik: He's a taker. C.C. Baxter: A what? Fran Kubelik: Some people take, some people get took. And they know they're getting took and there's nothing they can do about it. (The Apartment, 1960)

I don't think he needs to be "defended" yet at this point, Gahrie. We don't know the details yet. So far it is just a lot of flak from partisans of one party or another.

We do know the guy cheated on his wife -- and that he'd cheated on his FIRST wife with HER (which, on a side note, is why I have to laugh at all the "Rudy was so mean to his second wife" sob stories -- come on, guys, do you think she shed a tear for his first wife when SHE was the other woman?).

Anyway, I'd assume he's cheated multiple times with different women -- guys who cheat on their wives usually do. But thus far I haven't seen any substantial evidence that he broke the law while doing so. That is what put Clinton over the line. I knew he was cheating on his wife when I voted for him in 1992. I don't think too many of his supporters were dumb enough to think the man was really keeping it in his pants. We knew his stories about how he was being a faithful husband were a bunch of horseshit. But he perjured himself; he lied under oath. That was not only illegal and a violation of foundational principles of our system of government, but an insult to our intelligence.

If someone has actually evidence that Giuliani broke the law in carrying out his illicit affairs, I'd very much like to hear it. All I've heard so far is he-said she-said crap from people with a reason to cover for Rudy or a reason to tear him down (the "everyone in New York knew about it" line above being a classic example of the latter).

(and yeah, I know a lot of social conservatives got their underwear in a bunch over Clinton's "immorality" -- but I don't have to answer for them, as I'm not one of them)

Geez, Ann. You have quite a troll infestation. It's nice of Mr. Alpha to let you scribble in the margins of his blog.

Why are people trolls if they disagree with you? I thought Ann's comments were open to folks of all political stripes? I thought this was a moderate blog and Ann had no special appeal to or identification with conservatives.

Ann herself hasn't weighed in on the controversy, so for all you know, she's on the "liberal" side that condemns Rudy's handling of his affair and the taxpayer money spent he blew traveling to the Hamptons. Granted, she was the very first one on this blog to give voice to the "Clinton did it" "defense," but that might be just because she was trying to provide balance.

So, yeah, why the troll infestation again?

Ann: Let us know if this is a conservatives-only comments section, now.

Oh, there’s no place like home for the holidays, ‘Cause no matter how far away you roam, When you pine for the sunshine of a friendly gaze, For the holidays, you can’t beat home, sweet home.

Take a bus, take a train Go and hop an aeroplane Put the wife and kiddies in the family car For the pleasure that you bring When you make that doorbell ring No trip could be too far

Oh there's no place like home for the holidays, ‘Cause no matter how far away you roam, If you want to be happy in a million ways, For the holidays, You can’t beat home, sweet home. For the holidays, You can’t beat home, sweet home.

However, Fen still doesn't understand that WH volunteer Willey's accusations have not been substantiated and in no way constitute a finding of sexual abuse. In fact, considering Willey's lack of credibility after admitting that she gave false information to the FBI, Fen proves he is entirely clueless about the difference between allegations and findings. The most pathetic aspect of this is that I've corrected Fen on this very point twice previously.

In light of Fen's ignorance, it's probably fairest to see his daft statements as unintentional comedy rather than pure hypocrisy. And in that regard, this assertion by Fen qualifies as high comedy:

You define your principles by what you believe the opposition does. And you have an interest in distorting what the opposition does to justify bad behavior by your party.

Cyrus: I go away for a week and when I come back, Fen is shrieking about The Clenis.

hdhouse: fen doesn't change cyrus. i was away for 2 months and its the same old dipstick.

Geez you lefties are so dishonest. Start back at the top of the thread - I didn't bring up Clinton, your side did:

alpha [10:06AM] Blame Clinton and shield the Republican from accountability.

There's more of the same following that - Beth, MadisonMan, Doyle, etc.

Your side tried to draw false equivalence, claiming that Rudy gaving an affair was the same as Clinton sexually abusing state employees, campaign volunteers, and interns. The only commonality that might be valid is Rudy having an affair with an employee [unproven] and Clinton having an affair with Lewinksy [proven]

Here's a hint: If you don't want me to correct your whitewashing of Clinton's sexual abuse, don't lie about it unless you want me to correct you. No mythmaking from you on these pages...

Okay Fen, I'm going to attempt to re-educate you just for the hell of it...

Geez you lefties are so dishonest. Start back at the top of the thread - I didn't bring up Clinton, your side did

Fen:

1. I'm not responsible for what others write.2. I don't have a "side" here. I speak for myself.3. I'm not a "lefty."

Three strikes is not a good start, Fen.

Your side tried to draw false equivalence...

Actually, Fen, I was commenting only on your posts, in which you compare Clinton's actions to those of Giuliani. My response makes the painfully obvious point that you apply one standard to Clinton (i.e., treating unproven allegations against Clinton as legal findings) and a second standard to Giuliani (i.e., insisting that no judgment be passed until the allegations are proven "true"). Is it possible for you to be any more hypocritical?

Apparently the answer to that is "yes." After distorting the historical record about Clinton, you wrote:

And you have an interest in distorting what the opposition does to justify bad behavior by your party.

Do you now understand why I find your comments so amusing, Fen? Your burning desire to worship The Clenis has led you to accuse others of hypocrisy while you happily carry on with your own gross hypocrisy.

Highly amusing--another bit of great performance art from an Althouse commenter. Keep it coming!

I generally argue a conservative position, especially when it comes to foreign policy, and environmental and economic issues. The problem is that you don't understand the definition of "conservative." Your problem, not mine.

Bullshit. When was it established as a "legal finding" that Clinton sexually abused Willey? When was it established as fact that Paula Jones was passed over for promotion because she refused to "suck" Clinton? You've reported both as "fact" when both remain "accusations."

You are very sloppy with facts and logic, Fen.

Another lie. I said conservative were with-holding judgement until they saw information from more honest sources, not that the allegations be "proven true"

The dishonesty rests with you, Fen. This is what you wrote:

We're waiting for more honest information on the "scandal" before we make judgement... If the allegations turn out to be true, we will have a problem with Rudy.

Ouch!

Is it possible for you to be any more dishonest? Distorting what I said to set up your little strawman?

Fen, I've been very honest in reporting your hypocrisy. The fact that you don't like the truth doesn't make my comments dishonest.

To paraphrase Truman, I don't give you hell; I just tell the truth and you think it's hell.

Gee Cyrus, thanks for the "lesson".

You're welcome. It is very generous of me to keep trying in the face of your willful ignorance.